230). However, the thing that needs to be understood is that in a historical sense, the definition of the term terrorism had been increasingly dependent on the interests and intentions of the powers who tried to define terrorism. Hence, the meaning of the term terrorism will always go on changing in the future in consonance with the agenda of the powers which extend the majority narrative.
Before elaborating on the relativity of the definition of terrorism, it will indeed be insightful to try to circumscribe the concept of terrorism within the domain of some widely accepted commonalities. It is a reality that in all ages and times, terrorism did evince some common traits and characteristics. To begin with, it would not be wrong to say that terrorism does happen to be a radical and extreme genre of political manipulation (Stout, 2002, p. 65). Most of the times the terrorists do resort to acts of extreme violence to create an environment of uncertainty and intimidation so as to make people get convinced about the ubiquity and potency of their power and sway. The other particular thing is that the aim of terrorism is always to disseminate a pervasive sentiment of panic and fear. Besides, terrorists also resort to acts of violence to accrue media and popular attention. Also, the most important thing about terrorism is that it contradicts and defies the sacrosanct human values and aspirations.
Now, if one considers some of these characteristics that are common to the configuration of a viable definition of terrorism, it is possible to contrive a definition of terrorism which may not be concrete, but still manages to convey a malleable meaning and intent that could be grasped by human logic and ethics. However, the sad thing is that if one takes into consideration the historical realities, the act of defining terrorism has always been subservient to the intent and aspirations of the dominant narrative. It is said that